Israel at war
- Thread starter Butler1000
- Start date
Why are you under the impression Joe Biden is behind these arrests and that they are being driven by those numbers?
Of course it can happen again.
But you have some problems with your theory.
One - the George Ffloyd protests were not notably more violent than previous BLM protests.
Where they were more violent, it was not due to the powers that be not giving them what they want. (As I'm sure you know, no police departments were defunded and there has been very little movement on policing reform in general)
The violence was mostly caused by police attacking the protesters.
Two - the Rodney King riots were in response to a jury decision, not a protest for policy change.
Three - Vietnam protests were mostly non-violent and remained so. (Again, most violence there is started by the cops.)
Four - You have not answered the important part of the first question - are you, in fact saying that if the protesters don't get the change in US policy that they want - " violence unfortunately and counter intuitively becomes necessary" ?
Not that violence will happen if the protests go on long enough, but that the protesters will be correct and justified to use violence to gain their policy changes?
I didn't say it was just due to police.
It was mostly due to police.
There was, as you say, though, people unaffiliated with the protests who also used them to engage in violence.
Which, if you want to say that any protest that is large enough and lasts for long enough time will have someone engage in violence eventually - ok.
But we are talking about violence in response to not getting a policy demand met.
How are those two positions different?
The violence is necessary in the view of the protesters.
Therefore it is correct and justified or - as you say - they won't get what they want.
In fact, by this logic, aren't the student protests doing this all wrong?
Chauvin was charged within days of the murder, after the riots and looting.
Shouldn't the students be initiating violence already?
And you attribute that to the violence, not the protests?
What does "listening to people NOW" entail?
If the University divests some, but not all, of its Israel investments and maintains ties to Israeli universities, what then?
Correct, but with qualifications.
Correct. That's why blocking the overpass on Avenue Rd. and 401 was not legal. The truckers blocking roads in Ottawa were not legal. Protestors on campuses intimidating other students are not legal.
And that is why protests that are going to result in that are not preapproved. They will not pass those legal requirements you mention. Protests at Queens Park are fine because everyday life or ordinary citizens are not disrupted. Protests in front of Mt. Sinai hospital that spill over onto University Ave. or intimidate patients from entering the hospital are not fine. Protesters blocking bridges in NYC or Frisco or a bridge connecting the US and Canada are not fine because of the disruption they cause.
But pro-Palis don't care. They feel that they are above the law so that they can support the Hamas terrorists that you also support.
The common theme here is that protests which inconvenience everyday life like getting to airports or hospitals are not an intrinsic right. They are not fine and that is why people get rightfully arrested. That is concrete proof that even if people want to protest and hopefully disrupt other people's lives are not considered an accepted part of protesting. Disruption is illegal. PERIOD.
Protests are meant for people with a cause to be heard. They are NOT an approved tactic to inconvenience people. It is not a carte blanche to enable hooliganism.
Criminal Code of Canada:
Criminal Code of Canada - section 180(1) - Common nuisance (criminal-code.ca)
Section 180(1) of the Criminal Code of Canada prohibits anyone from committing a common nuisance that endangers the lives, safety, or health of the public, or causes physical injury to any person. This section is designed to protect the public from various forms of misconduct that may pose a risk to their well-being or cause them harm. A common nuisance is anything that may cause harm, injury, inconvenience, or material losses to the public.
Go write a letter or 10,000 to your MP and inconvenience them. That is allowed.
Last edited:
The growth continues
vancouver.citynews.ca
Palestine solidarity encampment starts at UBC
Students and community members from across the Lower Mainland started an encampment at UBC early Monday morning.
vancouver.citynews.ca
Ah.
Your comment is merely that some protesters will think violence is justified if they don't get what they want.
I misunderstood.
Well. Sure.
There are always some people who think that.
The question is what you, I, and society think about that.
My general rule is that the bar for justifying violence to achieve political gain is very high.
I disagree.
The question needs to be asked of other people as well.
Obviously, when gauging how much of a threat the protests are, one has to ask the students.
Do they think that violence is justified for them to get what they want?
One of the main accusations being used to sic the cops on them is that they do, in fact, think that.
So finding out if it is true or not would be helpful.
I think the violence had great impact.
Without it, much more progress would have been made, but the narrative of "these were merely Black people being violent" was used to tremendous effect to de-legitimize the protests.
No, it isn't.
The protests that are getting all the press are mostly at Universities and many of them have been directed at getting those universities to divest from Israel.
For instance, the Columbia protester have three demands:
U of T had divestment demands. If I recall, McGill here in Canada has divestment demands.
The University protests (which are the ones getting all the coverage and driving the press narrative) are primarily about the thing the students feel the University can do - divest from Israel and weapons manufacturers.
All bluster and no ideas? Guess what Eggo, if you can't step up to the plate, you can't play the game. Frankie has you on the run too. When you want to join the adult table, feel free to refute what I said with something real. A concrete origional idea or premise.
That's your plan? That question was to you.
woah again
We've been through the ravage, slaughter and steal part....
Here we go, guys!
Into Rafah in the next couple of days! Betting that Yahya is long gone and has bribed the Egyptian border guards to let him, his favourite wife and a few of his favourite kids out of Gaza. The Gazan people and the wives Yahya is sick of can stay and get bombed.
Into Rafah in the next couple of days! Betting that Yahya is long gone and has bribed the Egyptian border guards to let him, his favourite wife and a few of his favourite kids out of Gaza. The Gazan people and the wives Yahya is sick of can stay and get bombed.
I agree with Valcazar on this one, the George Floyd and BLM protests were largely very peaceful and most reported violence was instigated either by the police or agitators. Same with climate protests and these Palestine protests.
I prefer this Shaw quote to Calgacus, where Gunner asks the Lord how he would respond to protesters in Jinghiskahn.
GUNNER. What would you do with me in Jinghiskahn if you had me
there?
LORD SUMMERHAYS. Well, since you ask me so directly, I'll tell you.
I should take advantage of the fact that you have neither sense enough
nor strength enough to know how to behave yourself in a difficulty of
any sort. I should warn an intelligent and ambitious policeman that
you are a troublesome person. The intelligent and ambitious policeman
would take an early opportunity of upsetting your temper by ordering
you to move on, and treading on your heels until you were provoked
into obstructing an officer in the discharge of his duty. Any trifle
of that sort would be sufficient to make a man like you lose your
self-possession and put yourself in the wrong. You would then be
charged and imprisoned until things quieted down.
Here's a good one:
The US, who wouldn't sign on to the ICC, has declared that the ICC has no jurisdiction on Israel.
The problem is the charges will be for war crimes in Palestine, which is recognized by the UN.
The US, who wouldn't sign on to the ICC, has declared that the ICC has no jurisdiction on Israel.
The problem is the charges will be for war crimes in Palestine, which is recognized by the UN.
It tells you a great deal about what people will accept and how they will react to protests turning violent.
It will also tell you a great deal about the likelihood of it happening, because the more the society in general thinks violence is an appropriate tactic, the more it will be used.
After all, if going violent results in no one supporting you, the choice to do so looks different than going violent resulting in many people cheering you on.
Which is why knowing what people think of violence as a tactic is important.
Yes, the immediate issue is whether or not that particular group right now is going to, but again, that calculus changes according to community support.
As I've mentioned before, in the US, violence by the police against protesters has usually been met with approval.
More than half of the people surveyed after Kent state thought it was the students fault they got themselves shot.
You mean after the protests that were massively larger in scale, size, international recognition, and duration - along with being in a different political environment - the only thing you can think of that moved the needle was violence that the protesters mostly condemned as hurting their cause?
Have the University protests issued demands to the US Government?
I don't feel any pressing need to engage with "The way to solve the conflict is ethnic cleansing or genocide" actually.
I'm not sure the jurisdiction is clear, though.
Could they prosecute a commander on the ground, who was physically in Palestine and committed war crimes?
I think that's clearly yes.
Can they go after the Prime Minister of a nation that isn't signed on to the ICC?
That's trickier.
Obviously they can - theoretically they can claim jurisdiction over whoever they want whenever they want.
I presume Netanyahu's answer to that will be to simply never leave Israel again.
Thank you.
We will have to disagree on that other than the violence did increase its media value, but not in a good way, IMO.
Sure.
But when discussing what it means to be listened to, you have to discuss their actual demands.
I don't know.
That's why I said it was trickier.
I don't know if there is existing case law or what.
Like I said, my understanding is that "You did this thing physically in the territory of an entity that recognizes the ICC so you can be tried by us even if your government doesn't recognize us" is well accepted.
I don't know what the history is concerning the more ambiguous situation.
